AlexS

U.S. Energy Policy Deters Investors

The simplest explanation for Waxman-Malarkey is that the Democrat politicians hate the oil companies because oil company executives and employees give much more campaign money to the Republicans. So the self-serving politicos are out to hurt the oil industry even if it drives the economy further into the recession/depression.

America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure

The other thing specifically about natural gas is I suspect it would be more economical to build gas-to-liquids plants and plan on converting natural gas to gasoline (and diesel). You wouldn't really need to change the infrastructure or the vehicles, and it would cut imports. The big problem would probably be getting around regulatory and NIMBY hurdles.

America Needs a Natural Gas Transportation Infrastructure

"Jimmy Carter’s excellent energy policy reduced foreign oil imports by 50% between 1977 and 1982." The numbers might be accurate but your conclusion is incorrect at best. What actually happened is that Richard Nixon imposed price controls on oil and gas in 1971. Oil imports rose from 0.4 billion barrels in 1971 to their medium term high of 2.4 billion barrels in 1979, the year Carter introduced a "phased" withdrawl of oil price controls, although U.S. oil production was essentially flat at from 1979-1981. Carter, thankfully, was beaten by Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 simply removed controls entirely. Imports were down each year from 1980 to 1983, up again in 1984, then down to a local low in 1985 of 1.2 billion barrels. After that they returned to their more normal upward curve that had been established prior to price controls. You can see a nice graph and observe the Nixon/Ford/Carter price control import hump (it's very easy to see) at:

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

Increase of State-Controlled Resources Threatens U.S. Consumers

Our Congress is basically doing the same thing by keeping so much of our potential new oil fields off limits. They just do it sooner in the development stage and with less violence. Plus, Venezuela did it by demanding that oil leases be "renegotiated" to a losing point for XOM and COP, which is sort of what Congress is doing with Gulf of Mexico leases. Rulers all think alike, don't you think?

Why "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Does Not Translate Into Effective National Energy Policy

"Drill, Baby, Drill" is not claimed to be (at least by Republicans) the total of a national energy policy. It is one thing we can do. Actually, the exact proposal is to allow drilling in new areas that we expect will produce a good amount of oil for the effort expended. The author's data supports this in a way, by pointing out the areas that are allowed to be drilled are getting so worked over that production declines. That's why we need to explore in new areas (coastal plain ANWR, offshore U.S. OCS). But if you want to compare slogans, it would appear that the Democrat's slogan is "Don't Drill, Baby, Don't Drill". Perhaps you could have a column on why that is not effective national energy policy, or even a small piece of a national energy policy.

Still an Oil Bull, Lame or Not

You can say mileage has gone down 5% and that's demand destruction. Or you can say the price has doubled and miles have gone down 5%, but therefore total spending on fuel has gone up by slightly less than 100%. I look at value in terms of dollars, not units. A million iPods has more value than 2 million pencils. Do you think you will be spending a lower percentage of your salary on energy in 5, or 10 years? Neither do I. I want my investments to be where the money is.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

Well said, freefall. Of course I'm not sure Obama wouldn't pull a Hugo Chavez and just nationalize it. He's got that lean and hungry look.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

I'll grant you that Republicans have been spending too much, but if you look at both parties you'll only find one with a significant group of people that want to cut spending. And it isn't the Democrats. And speaking of disasters, Obama recently said that to address our energy crisis will take a "complete" transformation of the economy. And I guess he wants to lead it, he of his few years as an urban activist, few years in the state senate, and few years in the U.S. Senate. Why I am worried that someone with no private business experience now calls upon himself to lead (or push) a complete transformation of the U.S. economy?

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

And CT, if our taxes went to bridges, fire departments, police, highways, etc., no problem. The Constitution says, "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare." It's the words "common" and "general" that matter. But a quarter of our budget goes specifically to senior citizens (a special interest group if there ever was one). Much of the rest goes to selected people and groups. Corn growers, ethanol blenders, stockholders of Fannie Mae, the list seems endless. I'd like to see us get back to spending for those things we have in common, the bridges, the police, the schools. Enough of this special interest nonsense. We will rue the day (we already are) when the politicians can buy off the votes of their special groups with everyone's money.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

As a Republican I find interesting all these "I am a Democrat, but ..." followed by a host of reasons why the Democratic Party's approach to key issues is nonsense. I would encourage you all to take a look at what your Democratic Party followership will lead to. Maybe it's time for a CHANGE.

Crude Sell-off: Solid Entry Point into U.S. Oil Majors

Pockyclips, I'd have to say as a Republican that offshore drilling is not necessarily a states rights issue. The region they're talking about (outer continental shelf) is by definition federal jurisdiction. I can see the states worried about their seashores but 5 miles out? And I think you've got the concept of subsidies reversed. Oil and nuclear to my knowledge are not subsidized. What usually stands in the way is some authority saying "NO", whether its Congress and OCS and ANWR, or Congress with its unwillingness to finally allow a geologically safe repository for nuclear waste, or to allow reprocessing of nuclear waste. Note that tax cuts are not subsidies by any reasonable definition. If they were, then allowing people (or companies) to keep the money they've earned would somehow become "subsidies". Not at all an honest definition. Just as dishonest is to impute to oil protection the cost of the U.S. Navy, for instance, as some people do. The Navy exists in large part to keep the sea lanes open for all trade, and no one attempts to attribute the cost of the Navy to the price of shirts, for instance. But Congress does subsidize ethanol, for instance, and requires oil companies to use certain percentages of ethanol in their gasoline. Congress hands over our cash. As well, Congress protects domestic ethanol with an import tax, thereby prohibiting the one source of ethanol (from sugar) that makes economic and energy sense (including greenhouse gases). Lastly I hear a lot of objections to OCS drilling on the grounds that it wouldn't be economical for the oil companies. Well if that's really the reason, then I say remove the obstacles to drilling and let the oil companies decide if its economical. No one in Congress, for instance, is making any calls about whether another hamburger chain would be profitable. Why would they object about profitability from oil production? Just another red herring.

Crude Sell-off: Solid Entry Point into U.S. Oil Majors

There are at least three good reasons high oil prices aren't necessarily good for big oil (XOM, COP, etc) and falling oil prices (within limits) not necessarily bad. One is that higher prices get the public and the politicians riled up, and little good comes from politicians getting riled up (or pretending to get riled up). Two is that crude oil is the major cost input for refined products, and most big oil companies refine much more oil (1.5-2x) than they produce. Three is that high oil prices put in motion a lot more oil production projects and bidding for resources (engineering, materials, etc) makes everything get expensive. For instance, much has been made of offshore U.S. drilling, but even if Congress were to approve drilling, most of the deep water platforms are currently off the Brazil coast and it would be very expensive to snare them for OCS US drilling. Of course, few of our politicians would know that, because few of them have ever been responsible for any business outside of perhaps being a partner in a law firm. Sad to say both of our Presidential nominees fit the "no business experience" class.

Does Big Oil's Apathy Justify Proposals to Tax Windfall Profits?

Why do we expect big oil companies to develop our alternative energy? Especially renewable energy, which so far seems to be largely agricultural. Big oil is not an agricultural company. You might as well expect The Gap to develop healthy pizza recipes. Oil companies explore for oil, produce oil, refine it (that's distillation plus some minor alterations in chemistry), and then sell the refined products. That's mostly it. None of that has anything to do with growing crops, building wind turbines, making solar cells. Look to others for that. As for defense involvement, you'll find a lot of defense expenditures in countries (Korea, Germany) that have no relationship to oil. Even the Middle East activity can be seen as related to Israel, the Suez Canal, and the Straits of Hormuz. In other words, trading, irrespective of the particular involvement of big oil companies. But you're right, I suspect. A lot of people are and will be after big oil. Revenge and because they have lots of money, which the politicians want, and they will take it. Revenge and Theft. Certainly two biggies in the conduct of human affairs. So the politicians will get their mob, that's for sure. But I wouldn't be using Seeking Alpha to defend it.

Obama Blows Wind(fall Profits) on Big Oil

Logan1, nonsense. Are you saying the leading candidate for the Presidency, currently a U.S. Senator, really hasn't thought out what he thinks about energy? We know what he thinks about it. More taxes. No drilling. More taxes. No nuclear. More taxes. He doesn't doubt it. Why should you?

Fitzman, good article. I also own COP and a fly rod.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

cruiser9805, perhaps you're aware that there are limits to the amount of DDGS that can be used in the diet of cattle. Perhaps you're aware too that DDGS is not well utilized in chickens and hogs. Pilgrim's Pride recently shut down a major chicken processing facility. It was commented that chicken producers are losing money on every chicken they grow. And have you seen the price of eggs lately? Eggs and chicken are, of course, low cost sources of protein to the consumer. Unfortunately chickens need corn, not DDGS. Corn should go to animals. Energy should come from inedibles.